Evaluating the Endophenotype Model of ADHD Neuropsychological Deficit: Results for Parents and Siblings of Children With ADHD Combined and Inattentive Subtypes.

Nigg, Joel T.; Blaskey, Lisa; Stawicki, Julie Ann; Sachek, Jennifer

doi:10.1037/0021-843x.113.4.614

Cited by 169 publications

(162 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

133

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Because the endophenotype is theorized as having a stronger link with disease genes than the phenotype, it is possible that their enhanced genetic risk expresses itself in their endophenotypic status. In that case, nonaffected siblings will show the same deficits, probably to a lesser extent than their affected siblings, which has been previously reported for executive and non-executive functions (Nigg et al 2004;Rommelse et al 2007;Seidman et al 2000;Slaats-Willemse et al 2005;Slaats-Willemse et al 2003). Such familially based deficits may prove useful for genetic research (Gottesman and Gould 2003).…”

supporting

confidence: 55%

Are Motor Inhibition and Cognitive Flexibility Dead Ends in ADHD?

Rommelse

Altink

Sonneville

et al. 2007

J Abnorm Child Psychol

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Executive dysfunction has been postulated as the core deficit in ADHD, although many deficits in lower order cognitive processes have also been identified. By obtaining an appropriate baseline of lower order cognitive functioning light may be shed on as to whether executive deficits result from problems in lower order and/or higher order cognitive processes. We examined motor inhibition and cognitive flexibility in relation to a baseline measure in 816 children from ADHD and control families. Multiple children in a family were tested in order to examine the familiality of the measures. No evidence was found for deficits in motor inhibition or cognitive flexibility in children with ADHD or their nonaffected siblings: Compared to their baseline speed and accuracy of responding, children with ADHD and their (non)affected siblings were not disproportionally slower or inaccurate when demands for motor inhibition or cognitive flexibility were added to the task. However, children with ADHD and their (non)affected siblings were overall less accurate than controls, which could not be attributed to differences in response speed. This suggests that inaccuracy of responding is characteristic of children having (a familial risk for) ADHD. Motor inhibition and cognitive flexibility as operationalized with mean reaction time were found to be familial. It is concluded that poorer performance on executive tasks in children with ADHD and their (non)affected siblings may result from deficiencies in lower order cognitive processes and not (only) from higher order cognitive processes/executive functions.Keywords Inhibition . Set shifting . Endophenotype . Affected and nonaffected siblings . Familiality Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) (American Psychiatric Association [APA] 1994) is associated with impairments in the fronto-striatal-basal ganglia neurocircuitry (Casey et al. 1997;Dickstein et al. 2005;Durston et al. 2003;Giedd et al. 2001). These impairments are hypothesized to be (causally) related to deficits in higher order cognitive processes/executive functions (Barkley 1997;Casey et al. 1997;Fuster 2002;Lovejoy et al. 1999;Mehta et al. 2004;Rubia et al. 1999). Executive deficits in working memory, (motor) inhibition, cognitive flexibility and planning are frequently found in children, adolescents and adults with ADHD (Barkley 1997;Boonstra et al. 2005b;Pennington and Ozonoff 1996;Sergeant et al. 2003;Sergeant et al. 2002;Willcutt et al. 2005). As the term 'higher order cognitive processes' suggests, there are also lower order cognitive processes on which higher order cognitive processes build (Halperin and Schulz 2006;Sergeant 2000;Sergeant et al. 2003;Shallice et al. 1996). Lower order cognitive processes, such as encoding, search, decision and response organization are less complex than higher order cognitive processes (Domin 1999;Parisi 1997;Sergeant 2000) and form necessary components for higher order cognitive operations (Baddeley and Della Sala J Abnorm Child Psychol (2007) 35:957-967

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 55%

Are Motor Inhibition and Cognitive Flexibility Dead Ends in ADHD?

Rommelse

Altink

Sonneville

et al. 2007

J Abnorm Child Psychol

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…cocaine, amphetamine, methamphetamine), and is also seen as a useful behavioural marker of genetic risk factors (Aron 2007;Aron and Poldrack 2005;Bellgrove et al 2006;Durston et al 2008;Fillmore et al , 2006Gauggel et al 2004;Monterosso et al 2005;Nigg et al 2004;Oosterlaan et al 1998;Penades et al 2007;Rubia et al 1998Rubia et al , 2005bRubia et al , 2007Schachar et al 2007;Schachar et al 1995;van den Wildenberg et al 2006). Indeed, impaired action inhibition is often considered as the core deficit in ADHD (e.g.…”

Section: The Unitary Concept Of 'Action Inhibition'mentioning

confidence: 99%

The neuropsychopharmacology of action inhibition: cross-species translation of the stop-signal and go/no-go tasks

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and rationale The term 'action inhibition' encapsulates the ability to prevent any form of planned physical response. Growing evidence suggests that different 'stages' or even subtypes of action inhibition activate subtly different neuropharmacological and neuroanatomical processes. Objectives In this review, we present evidence from two commonly used and apparently similar behavioural tests, the stop-signal task and the go/no-go task, to determine if these have similar neuroanatomical and neurochemical modulation. Results Whilst performance of the stop-signal and go/no-go tasks is modulated across only subtly different anatomical networks, serotonin (5-HT) is strongly implicated in inhibitory control on the go/no-go but not the stop-signal task, whereas the stop-signal reaction time appears more sensitive to the action of noradrenaline. Conclusions There is clear neuropharmacological and neuroanatomical evidence that stop-signal and go/no-go tasks represent different forms of action inhibition. This evidence translates with remarkable consistency across species. We discuss the possible implications of this evidence with respect to the development of novel therapeutic treatments for disorders in which inhibitory deficits are prominent and debilitating.

show abstract

“…There are reports of impaired set shifting in ADHD on the trail-making task (TMT: review (Nigg, 2005) and on the switch-task (Cepeda, Cepeda, & Kramer, 2000;Kramer, Cepeda, & Cepeda, 2001), and that set-shifting is a heritable feature (Nigg, Blaskey, Stawicki, & Sachek, 2004). We therefore proposed to see if a) we could replicate these results in children as well as in adolescents with ADHD, b) we could show a relationship with clinical ratings in these cases and their often symptomatic siblings, and c) if experimental parameters (e.g.…”

Section: Nih Public Accessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive switching processes in young people with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

Oades

Christiansen

2008

Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) can be slow at switching between stimuli, or between sets of stimuli to control behaviour appropriate to changing situations. We examined clinical and experimental parameters that may influence the speed of such processes measured in the trail-making (TMT) and switch-tasks in cases with ADHD combined-type, their non-affected siblings and unrelated healthy controls. The latency for completion of the trail-making task controlling for psychomotor processing (TMT B-A) was longer for ADHD cases, and correlated with Conners' ratings of symptom-severity across all subjects. The effect decreased with age. Switchtask responses to questions of "Which number?" and "How many?" between sets of 1/111 or 3/333 elicited differential increases in latency with condition that affected all groups. But there was evidence for increased symptom-related intra-individual variability among the ADHD cases, and across all subjects. Young siblings showed familiality for some measures of TMT and switch-task performance but these were modest. The potential influence of moderator variables on the efficiency of processing stimulus change rather than the speed of processing are discussed. KeywordsADHD; attention; heritability; risk; siblings; set; switch; trail-making To switch attention or behaviour is fundamentally adaptive in environments that change. Switching attention between stimuli (from moment to moment), switching plans (from retreat to approach) can also be rewarding. But switches cost. They need control, effort (energy) and take time compared to a continuation with the ongoing mode of response. If control is efficient the cost can be small. Young people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have disturbances in reinforcement processes (Sonuga-Barke, 2005), controlling effortful processes (Sergeant, Geurts, Huijbregts, Scheres, & Oosterlaan, 2003;Hurks et al., 2005), and switching attention-related processes (Pearson, Lane, & Swanson, 1991;Mason, Humphreys, & Kent, 2004;White & Shah, 2006).Neurophysiological and neuroimaging studies report roles for the inferior frontal regions in switching between stimuli (Jemel, Achenbach, Müller, Röpcke, & Oades, 2002;Beck, Rees, Frith, & Lavie, 2001), and parts of the intraparietal sulcus in switching between plans contingent on set (Dove, Pollmann, Schubert, Wiggins, & von Cramon, 2000;Hampshire & Corresponding author: Biopsychology Group, University Clinic for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Virchowstr. 174, 45147 Essen, Germany, Tel.: +49-(0)201-9597-030, Fax.: +49-(0)201-7227-302, robert.oades@uni-due.de. Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which c...

show abstract

Evaluating the Endophenotype Model of ADHD Neuropsychological Deficit: Results for Parents and Siblings of Children With ADHD Combined and Inattentive Subtypes.

Cited by 169 publications

References 65 publications

Are Motor Inhibition and Cognitive Flexibility Dead Ends in ADHD?

Are Motor Inhibition and Cognitive Flexibility Dead Ends in ADHD?

The neuropsychopharmacology of action inhibition: cross-species translation of the stop-signal and go/no-go tasks

Cognitive switching processes in young people with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About